At the luncheon, Kerlikowske said that the U.S. Department of Justice will retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of existing federal statutes criminalizing the use of controlled substances, including marijuana. Any state laws to the contrary, he said, are of no legal effect.

“No state, no executive can nullify a statute that has been passed by Congress,” the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy told the National Press Club audience.

“Let’s be clear,” he continued, “law enforcement officers take an oath of office to uphold federal law and they are going to continue to pursue drug traffickers and drug dealers.”

Simply put, nullification is the recognition of the right of states to consider null, void, and of no legal effect any act of the federal government that exceeds the “few and defined” powers granted to it by the states in the Constitution.

The president’s hard line stance sets up a continuing conflict with a number of states where voters and lawmakers have approved the legalization of marijuana for personal use.

Colorado and Washington became the first two states to nullify unconstitutional federal drug statutes by legalizing marijuana for recreational use, with voters backing Amendment 64 and Initiative 502 — but rejecting a similar proposal in Oregon. The two victories for legalization advocates, however, have set the stage for a potential showdown with the Obama administration of historic importance.

Kerlikowske’s statements on Wednesday demonstrate that the showdown is approaching.

Particularly as other states are considering similar decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

In New York, for example, Governor Andrew Cuomo is supporting a measure that, according to the Associated Press, would “de-criminalize the small amounts of marijuana often found during [police stops]. Cuomo wants public display of small amounts of marijuana to be a violation, not a more serious misdemeanor that Democrats say can ruin young lives.”

Apparently, not all Democrats share those feelings about the criminalization of weed, however. As his drug czar’s comments at the National Press Club demonstrate, President Obama — the nominal head of the Democratic Party — remains as fiercely determined to punish pot use and prosecute the “war on drugs” as his predecessors in the Oval Office.

Marijuana and other illicit drugs are addictive and unsafe especially for use by young people. As officials with the National Institute on Drug Abuse state, drug addiction is a progressive disease and the earlier one starts, the more likely are the chances of developing a substance use disorder.

Marijuana contains chemicals that can change how the brain works. And the science, though still evolving in terms of long-term consequences of marijuana use, is clear: marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects. This is especially troubling since research suggests one-in-11 people who ever used marijuana will become dependent on it; this risk rises to one-in-six when use begins in adolescence.

Under current federal law, specifically Section 844 of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), conviction for simple possession carries a potential punishment of up to one year in prison, a $1,000 fine, or both. Subsequent convictions impose higher penalties.

The feds claim to be winning the battle. According to a story by Agence France-Presse and reprinted by Raw Story, “Last week, the head of the US Drug Enforcement Agency, Michele Leonhart, told Congress it had seized $2.8 billion dollars in illicit drugs assets and profits, including some $750 million in cash.”

Drug prohibition is the “sword of the state.” The state must be willing to use force against its citizens and it must occasionally demonstrate this willingness by harming, arresting, imprisoning, and even killing its citizens. Prohibition is the perfect instrument because it is typically used against distrusted minorities and poor people. Such groups have little political clout and are naturally lured into participating in illegal markets by the large amounts of money involved.

Peter Andreas argues in Smuggler Nation: How Illicit Trade Made America (2013) that the regulation and policing of illegal markets has been a primary driving force in the creation and growth of the central state apparatus since colonial times: “So even though warfare and welfare are typically viewed as the main drivers of big government, Smuggler Nation highlights another motor: increased government size, presence, and coercive powers via the policing of smuggling” (p. 7).The war on drugs is literally a street war. Smugglers, drug dealers, and street gangs — who make their money selling drugs — are armed to the teeth with high-powered weapons. The police counter with machine guns, bullet-proof vests and helmets, and even tanks. The collateral damage to innocent people has been enormous.

The war on drugs has led to the militarization of the police, a vast increase in police power, and a prison system with over 2 million prisoners, a significant number of which are imprisoned due to prohibition and smuggling. The war has also led to a significant decrease of our constitutional rights and a substantial increase in what the police, investigators, and the court system can do to limit or infringe on our rights.

Furthermore, although the use of marijuana is considered by many (including the Obama administration) to be inadvisable and by many others to be immoral, the irrefutable fact is that the Constitution does not empower the federal government to make laws governing its use or cultivation. Regardless of one’s own feelings on the plant, constitutionalists understand that speaking only of sovereignty, the right to regulate in this area belongs to states, and not to the White House, the Department of Justice, or to any other agency or department of the federal government.

Two states have now chosen to exercise their prerogative to pass measures controlling the use and/or possession of marijuana. In Colorado and Washington, the people and their representatives have nullified an unconstitutional federal act and constitutionalists should support such exercises of state sovereignty and resistance to federal overreaching.

Apart from his work as a journalist, Joe Wolverton, II is a professor of American Government at Chattanooga State and was a practicing attorney until 2009. He lives in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Since 2000, Joe has been a featured contributor to The New American magazine. Most recently, he has written a cover story article on the Tea Party movement, as well as a five-part series on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare.

@wigswest Totally agreed – the best thing that could happen for states rights is for some DEA guys to get thrown in jail for attempting to arrest someone in an MJ-friendly state, bringing the whole “federal authority” thing to a head.
The Federal government has ZERO authority to regulate drugs, and it’s about time someone called them on it.

@Monorprise They take an oath to uphold the constitution as well as federal laws. What happens when one directly contradicts the other? They would have to sacrifice one oath in order to uphold the other. This invites several questions. The first is why would you uphold the oath to enforce federal laws that sit below the constitution? The second is why would you throw away the oath to uphold the supreme law and only law of the land which is the constitution? The only way you can uphold both oaths is to uphold laws that are in pursuant of the constitution itself.

@onetenther @Monorprise Now you stop it with such rational thinking onetenther!!The states are still paying law enforcement salaries but it is a good pointto bring up the pay. As the US Dollar is losing it’s power abroad it will eventually lose it at home, as will the feds…then the states will once again return to power. Let’s hope they don’t over turn these laws to “reduce unemployment”

The best argument to decriminalize drugs on the state level is simply to eliminate every law against drugs within a state but then allow the federal government to come in and police it. It seems that if we want to eliminate the income tax in the states that we have to cut spending somewhere. How much do states spend on enforcing drug laws? Combine arrest, police patrols, judicial procedures, and incarceration and I bet we get a number that equals what we take in for income taxes.

@Lonny Eachus You sarcasm serves you no point. Nullification is not self-declaring someone a king simply because one state is not claiming any authority over another. They are simply asserting their authority over themselves which is the very idea behind individual liberty. What we are doing is not declaring anyone a king of the entire universe but more declaring an individual a king of their own selves only which shouldn’t really bother anyone at all.

The sarcasm was about Kerlikowske’s statement, not about nullification. I think his claim of Federal superiority — especially without even any qualifiers like the Interstate Commerce clause — was hilarious.

P.S. Hey, Tenth Amendment Center: when are you going to get around to fixing your comment system? I have to switch browsers in order to even use it.

To see socially-regressive, sanctimonious neanderthals denigrate, bully, threaten, and even murder the ill and dying for choosing to exercise their God-given right to self-medicate with one of Earth’s most medically efficacious plants.

To see our prisons filled to budget-busting capacity on the false pretense of protecting people from themselves.

To see the selective targeting and destruction of African-American families and African-American communities.

To see the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans destroyed or severely disrupted.

To see our Federal government using the international drug trade to fund their despicable black-operations throughout the entire globe.

To see a significant curtailment of our constitutional rights and a substantial increase in violent crime.

To see the huge market in narcotics gifted to ruthless criminals, foreign terrorists, and corrupt law enforcement.

@MalcolmKyle1 I don’t think that we will see the full legalization of drugs but I don’t see what is wrong with delegating them to misdemeanor offenses where someone only has to pay a fine. It just seems that when we do that all the problems you mentioned (and ones I agree occur because of harsh drug laws) will evaporate. The thing I’ve noticed is the fact that ever since LBJ announced a war on drugs in the 60s the arguments as to why we should remove our procedurial rights have been eaten away. The war on terror is much worse. I’m all for prosecuting terrorist and criminals but why should I lose a single right because of that and why should I be subject to overly harsh laws?

@onetenther
because YOU agree to authority to fix this problem, yet the terrorists are backed by these people because they are these people. The FBI’s personal involvement is very hard to dismiss and when you put your attention on to the incorrect cause of these ridiculous acts no correct solution can be formed.

Transform’s outstanding book titled, After the War on Drugs: Blueprints for Regulation, provides specific proposals for how drugs could be regulated in the real world. The book is available for free online. If you would like to read it then simply google it.

In November 2008, 68 percent of Swiss voters approved the legalized regulation of heroin.

Results

In many cases, patients’ physical and mental health has improved, their housing situation has become considerably more stable, and they have gradually managed to find employment. Numerous participants have managed to reduce their debts. In most cases, contacts with addicts and the drug scene have decreased. Consumption of non-prescribed substances declined significantly in the course of treatment.

Dramatic changes have been seen in the situation regarding crime. While the proportion of patients who obtained their income from illegal or borderline activities at the time of enrollment was 70%, the figure after 18 months of HAT was only 10%.

Each year, between 180 and 200 patients discontinue HAT. Of these patients, 35-45% are transferred to methadone maintenance, and 23-27% to abstinence-based treatment.

The average costs per patient-day at outpatient treatment centers in 1998 came to CHF 51. The overall economic benefit – based on savings in criminal investigations and prison terms and on improvements in health – was calculated to be CHF 96. After deduction of costs, the net benefit is CHF 45 per patient-day.

Well I am creating a zero tolerance for Government zombies. I declare myself not a part of their system. Here, let me say this out LOUD; (THEIR SYSTEM) because I do not consent to czar’s or the US Department of Justice or “sicko ward” on the basis that I have the very same inalienable rights as all these dimwits and therefore conclude their rules and laws are NULL and VOID, non existent, made up, false and fabricated beyond any reason what so ever.

Its time that WE and our stinking corrupt state stand in defiance to any actions against us by flatly refusing to comply.

Justice means to hold responsible and these dummies need to be held responsible for the crimes against us including the drug war which is a crime against humanity. Those supporting it in any fashion, agreement or decision have gone beyond their means as well their own inalienable rights so suck it up Gil and Obumer, your play is done, this show is over so get down off the stage NOW! You suck at it anyway.

There is no such thing as these federal laws because they were made fictitiously and have no authority of any kind and those of you agreeing to these terms deserve a slapping to WAKE up.

The whole world watches while we pepper-spray, taser and cudgel our own citizens for exercising their birth-right to assemble peacefully. The whole world watches while we strip-search and anally probe our own wheelchair-bound great grandmothers on suspicion of being terrorists. The whole world watches while masked government thugs break into our homes to ridicule, bully, threaten and murder us for using or growing a medically efficacious plant.

The prohibitionist model is one of blind ignorance, abject failure and economic collapse. Its underlying ideology is one of fear, envy, greed and hate.

* Do you wish to greatly reduce, even almost eliminate the market in illegal narcotics?

* Do you wish to bring about an enormous reduction in the presence and influence of organized crime?

* Do you wish to reduce harm to the existing users and addicts – who may be your children, brothers, sisters, parents or neighbors – by allowing them safe and controlled legal access, which will greatly minimize the possibility of ‘peer-initiation’ and sales to minors?

* Do you wish to see a reduction in the number of users or addicts, thus greatly curtailing drug related illness and deaths while also reducing societal harm from problematic abusers?

While it is possible that the Feds can control interstate traffic of various substances, I can’t find any place in the Constitution where they are given the power to ban anything. I assume that’s why it was necessary to create a constitutional amendment at the beginning of the prohibition era. When and how did this change, or is it an overt power grab by the Feds?

The federal government members are plainly demonstrating they do as they wish not as the American PEOPLE wish. Were they not elected or hired to represent the PEOPLE and do as the PEOPLE demand? When do you supposed this government system which appears to be controlled by the super rich of the world will become extinct due to the fact that the PEOPLE do not want to live under such a controlling prison type system?

@vjimatjijoro
Which people and which demands? What if you have a people totally relying on dependence of others. What is the difference of Democracy and a Republic?

Government is a system that must be controlled for Liberty to exists and since the Independent of this country made no such agreement to be this state does the Rich intrude and control them by creating dependence.

THEY are not to blame for they made no decision or agreements to be Independent based on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Government agreed to be controlled and dependent on direction.

So you see we only have one state of existence today called depending on another to decide versus the state of decision making Based on Life, Liberty and our Pursuits of happiness by each decision maker who are able to form good agreements based on such a fact of Life.

In other words Government does what they are told by those telling them and we are not telling them because we comply, we consent and we go along with actions WE know and have been fully warned against like the Banking Cartels and the creation of slavery. So these representatives are doing exactly what they are told by wealthy and supported entirely by our consent to USE these terms.

@WilliamSchooler I can agree that these representatives are doing exactly what they are told by the super wealthy, but your statement of us supporting them by our consent to USE these terms seems a bit out of place and rather accepting of their determinations. That would imply that Hilter was only doing what he was told to do by a minority of peoples under his control, which was not the case.

I also agree that it appears most of our citizens could give a rat’s behind about anything these elected representatives do as long as it does not adversely affect their life styles. It seems most just do not want to be bothered with anything outside their sphere of supplied amenities. In other words, it appears we may have an amount of unconcerned or uncaring citizens yet paid for citizens within our midst.

Anyway, these representatives remain, seemingly, under the control of the super rich. They must be rather well compensated, in some form or another, or else they don’t give a darn about any of the masses, just the super rich.

@vjimatjijoro
If we did not consent or agree to the terms given us none of this would be. This is a truth WE have to face and we can start by the financial brokers of our world. We use their money and not our value, WE do that not them. We barrow based on their concepts which in turn supports the perversion of the Government body.

WE allow the military industrial complex even knowing by full warnings what will transpire.

WE allow bigger Governments in our states and Federally.

We fully see crimes against us and we do not rise up with an alternative because of our own fears.

Most of our citizens are simply miss informed and do care but base their choices and agreements on the incorrect information. The majority does care just like the majority of my family does care but are clueless what to do about it.

Super rich could be defined as super criminal by the results that we can view and stealing is a crime in this country and around the world. Yet we sit in wonder and do not follow instructions worth a crap and they were simple instructions. When I found them sitting before my eyes the first thing I asked myself was; where the hell have I been? I then realized there were millions just like me.

The Declaration of Independence made it clear what the People do when their Governments become corrupt. It was the most clear set of instructions ever written on this planet yet you and most of us have never even considered this possibility by our very own lack of understanding. Those who make decisions have not one other to blame but themselves and decision makers are the foundation to all great agreements as well poor ones and nothing on this earth exists without the force of agreement because it is the deciding factor in ALL cases.

Now that I understand this fully did I take responsibility and now I simply await agreement by the decision makers of this world because LIFE effects the world and not just the US.

That is where this government is wrong they do not have finally say over a state the state has final say over the federal government so it is in our Constitution . Sorry drug Czar you are wrong and so is obama.

Apart from his work as a journalist, Joe Wolverton, II is a professor of American Government at Chattanooga State and was a practicing attorney until 2009. He lives in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Since 2000, Joe has been a featured contributor to The New American magazine. Most recently, he has written a cover story article on the Tea Party movement, as well as a five-part series on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare.